Telangana High Court
Payal Shanker vs The State Of Telangana on 25 November, 2024
Author: K. Lakshman
Bench: K. Lakshman
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 8327 OF 2024
ORAL ORDER:
Heard Mr. T.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Syed Yasar Mamoon, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 - State.
2. This Criminal Petition is filed under Section - 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.95 of 2024 pending on the file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases at Nampally, Hyderabad.
3. The petitioners herein are A.1, 3 to 5 and A.8 in the said case. The offences alleged against them are under Sections - 147, 188, 341 and 353 read with 149 of IPC and Section - 7 (1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.
4. Basing on the complaint dated 02.11.2015 lodged by Respondent No.2, the Police, II Town Police Station, Adilabad, registered a case in Cr.No.389 of 2015 against the petitioners. The allegations leveled against the petitioners herein are that they along with others, staged dharna in front of Agricultural Market Yard, Adilabad by blocking the road demanding the State 2 Government for Minimum Support Prize to the agricultural products, thereby violated the orders of Section 30 of the Police Act, and obstructed the cotton transport vehicles, which were coming to Agricultural Market Yard for selling the cotton. They also used criminal force and assaulted police personnel, who were on bandobust duty and caused breach of peace.
5. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. of respondent No.2 as L.W.1, Police Constables as L.Ws.2 to 5, Secretary, Grade II and Market Supervisor at Agricultural Market Yard, Adilabad as L.Ws.6 and 7.
6. It is relevant to see how far the allegations leveled against the petitioners in the complaint attract the ingredients of the offences and the same are extracted below:-
353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.--Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person to the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
341. Punishment for wrongful restraint.--Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple 3 imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
147. Punishment for rioting Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
"188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant.--Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or trends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Explanation.--It is not necessary that the offender should intend to produce harm, or contemplate his disobedience as likely to produce harm. It is sufficient that he knows of the order which he disobeys, and that his disobedience produces, or is likely to produce, harm.
Illustration An order is promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, directing that a religious procession shall not pass down a certain street. A knowingly disobeys the order, and thereby causes danger of riot. A has committed the offence defined in this section."4
7. In N.T. Rama Rao v. The State of A.P., rep. by Public Prosecutor1 while dealing with the offences under Sections - 188 and 283 of IPC, the learned Single Judge held as under:
"5) Even if the allegation that the petitioner conducted public meetings at three road junctions contrary to the permission accorded for conducting of a public meeting only at one specified place is true, such a direction under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 could have been given only by the Superintendent or the Assistant Superintendent of Police of the District but not by any of their subordinates. If such a permission is granted under Section 30 of the Police Act, 1861 and is violated, Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure mandates that the complaint in this regard has to be made by the public servant concerned or some other person to whom such a public servant is administratively subordinate to enable any Court to take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of Code of Criminal Procedure. In the present case, the charge sheet was filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, who could not have been the authority to grant permission for the public meeting and therefore, the complaint/charge sheet is in 1 . Criminal Petition No.5323 of 2009, decided on 17.09.2009 5 violation of the mandatory provision of Section 195(1)(a) of Code of Criminal Procedure.
6) That apart, the offence alleged to have been committed under Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code by the petitioners and others is obviously in consequence to the alleged offence under Section 188 of Indian Penal Code and is not an independent of the same.
Even otherwise, the conduct of public meeting at three road junctions or obstruction to the traffic could not have been considered as causing any danger or injury to any person. In so far as the obstruction in any public way is concerned, which can also be covered by Section 283 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge sheet cites only one witness to speak about the traffic jam caused by the road show. But, when the conduct of the public meeting at least at one place has been permitted and if the gathering for that public meeting resulted in any inconvenience by way of obstructing the traffic, the same cannot be considered to be with necessary guilty mens rea to construe the existence of an offence punishable under Indian Penal Code. Under the circumstances, none of the offences alleged can be said to have any reasonable basis and in any view, the complaint/charge sheet being in violation of 6 Section 195 (1) (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure, has to fail.
7) As the complaint has failed due to its un- sustainability, the proceedings in their entirety have to fail, though the 1st accused alone approached this Court by way of this Criminal Petition."
8. In Thota Chandra Sekhar v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, through S.H.O., P.S. Eluru Rural, West Godavari District2 relying on various judgments including N.T. Rama Rao1 and the guidelines laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 3, more particularly, guideline No.6, which says that where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious remedy to redress the grievance of the party, a learned Single Judge of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh quashed the proceedings in the said C.C. by exercising power under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C. It further 2 . Criminal Petition No.15248 of 2016, decided on 26.10.2016 3 . (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 7 held that the proceedings shall not be continued due to technical defect of obtaining prior permission under Section - 155 (2) of Cr.P.C. and taking cognizance on the complaint filed by V.R.O. and it is against the purport of Section - 195 (1) (a) of Cr.P.C.
9. The Investigating Officer did not follow the procedure laid down under Section - 155 of Cr.P.C. Thus, contents of charge sheet including statements of LWs.1 to 9 lack the ingredients of Sections - 188 of IPC and also Section - 7 (1) of the Criminal Amendment Act. The proceedings for the offences are liable to be quashed.
10. The subject crime is also registered against the petitioners herein for the offences under Sections - 147, 341 and 353 read with 149 of IPC. The complaint and the statements recorded under Section - 161 of Cr.P.C. of L.Ws.1 to 7 lack the ingredients of the offences alleged against the petitioners.
11. In Bhajan Lal3, the Apex Court cautioned that power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and circumspection and that too in the rarest of rear cases. While examining a complaint, quashing of which is sought, Court cannot embark upon 8 an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or in the complaint. The Apex Court in the said judgment laid down certain guidelines/parameters for exercise of powers under Section - 482 of Cr.P.C., which are as under:
"(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.9
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the Act concerned (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or Act concerned, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge."
The said principle was reiterated by the Apex Court in catena of decisions.
12. As far as the offences under Sections 147, 188, 341 and 353 read with 149 of IPC are concerned, perusal of statements of LWs.1 to 7 would disclose that they never spoke about the said offences said to have committed by the petitioners including Section - 353 of IPC. Thus, the complaint lacks the ingredients of the said offences. Therefore, continuation of proceedings in present C.C.No.95 of 2024 against the petitioners/A.1, A.3 to A.5 and A.8 for the said offences is an abuse of process of law and, therefore, the same are liable to be quashed.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings in C.C.No.95 of 2024 pending on the 10 file of Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Excise Cases at Nampally, Hyderabad, are hereby quashed against the petitioners herein - accused Nos.1, 3 to 5 and 8.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Criminal Petition shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date: 25.11.2024 vvr